Suspected of murder in South Carolina, petitioner, an illiterate
negro, was arrested in Tennessee on Friday and taken to South
Carolina on Sunday. The South Carolina sheriff had obtained a
warrant for his arrest for theft of a pistol, but it was not read
to him nor was he informed of the charge against him. Confined in a
small hot room, he was interrogated daily and nightly by relays of
police officers until he confessed to the murder on Wednesday
night, after the police had threatened to arrest his mother.
Meanwhile, he was denied counsel and access to family and friends,
was not given a preliminary hearing, and was not informed of his
constitutional rights. At his trial in a state court, the
confession was admitted in evidence over his objection and he was
convicted.
Held: The use of a confession obtained in this manner
violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and
the conviction is reversed.
Watts v. Indiana, ante, p.
338 U. S. 49;
Turner v. Pennsylvania, ante, p.
338 U. S. 62. Pp.
338 U. S.
68-71.
212 S.C. 124, 46 S.E.2d 682, reversed.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed petitioner's
conviction for murder notwithstanding his claim that his confession
was obtained under circumstances rendering its admission in
evidence a denial of due process of law. 212 S.C. 124, 46 S.E.2d
682. This Court granted certiorari. 334 U.S. 837.
Reversed, p.
338 U. S.
71.
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER announced the judgment of the Court and
an opinion in which MR. JUSTICE MURPHY and MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
join.
On Sunday morning, April 28, 1946, Edward L. Bennett and his
wife were killed in their store in Aiken
Page 338 U. S. 69
County, South Carolina. Bennett's last words were, "A big negro
shot me and robbed me." Petitioner, Harris, age twenty-five, a
slightly built Negro, was subsequently indicted in the Court of
General Sessions for Aiken County and found guilty of the murder of
the Bennetts. The jury's verdict required imposition of the death
sentence. The Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the claim that
a confession introduced at the trial was obtained under
circumstances which precluded its admission under the Due Process
Clause, and sustained the conviction, 212 S.C. 124, 46 S.E.2d 682,
692, by a 3-2 vote, two judges dissenting on the ground that the
facts show that the confession "was not freely and voluntarily
made." We brought the case here to consider the validity of this
claim. 334 U.S. 837.
When the disputed testimony is resolved in favor of the State,
the following facts emerge:
The police of Aiken County spent two and a half months in
fruitless investigation of the murders. Many suspects had been held
for interrogation and then released. Suspicion was finally directed
toward petitioner by reports that he possessed a pistol and had
left for Nashville, Tennessee, soon after the murders. The Sheriff
of Aiken County then obtained a warrant, ostensibly for the purpose
of arresting petitioner for the theft of his aunt's pistol but
actually to secure his return from Nashville. He was taken into
custody there on Friday, July 12, 1946. No warrant was read to him,
and he was not informed of the charge against him. He was brought
back to Aiken County and lodged in its jail on Sunday afternoon at
about four o'clock. He first learned that he was suspected of the
murder of Bennett on Monday afternoon. He denied the accusation. At
that time, he was briefly interrogated by the sheriff and the
jailer.
On Monday night, questioning began in earnest. At least five
officers worked in relays, relieving each other
Page 338 U. S. 70
from time to time to permit respite from the stifling heat of
the cubicle in which the interrogation was conducted. Throughout
the evening, petitioner denied that he had killed the Bennetts. On
Tuesday, the questioning continued under the same conditions from
1:30 in the afternoon until past one the following morning, with
only an hour's interval at 5:30. On Wednesday afternoon, the Chief
of the State Constabulary, with half a dozen of his men, questioned
petitioner for about an hour, and the local authorities carried on
the interrogation for three and a half hours longer. At 6:30 that
evening, the examination resumed. Petitioner continued to deny
implication in the killings. The sheriff then threatened to arrest
petitioner's mother for handling stolen property. Petitioner
replied, "Don't get my mother mixed up in it, and I will tell you
the truth." Petitioner then stated in substance what appears in the
confession introduced at the trial. The session ended at
midnight.
Petitioner was not informed of his rights under South Carolina
law, such as the right to secure a lawyer, the right to request a
preliminary hearing, or the right to remain silent. No preliminary
hearing was ever given, and his confession does not even contain
the usual statement that he was told that what he said might be
used against him. During the whole period of interrogation, he was
denied the benefit of consultation with family and friends, and was
surrounded by as many as a dozen members of a dominant group in
positions of authority. It is relevant to note that Harris was an
illiterate.
The trial judge, in his charge, told the jury that, without the
confession, there was no evidence which would support a conviction,
and instructed them that they could consider the confession only if
they found it to have been "voluntary." Upon appeal, the highest
court of the State made a conscientious effort to measure the
circumstances under which petitioner's confession was made against
the
Page 338 U. S. 71
circumstances surrounding confessions which we have held to be
the product of undue pressure. It concluded that this confession
was not so tainted. We are constrained to disagree. The systematic
persistence of interrogation, the length of the periods of
questioning, the failure to advise the petitioner of his rights,
the absence of friends or disinterested persons, and the character
of the defendant constitute a complex of circumstances which
invokes the same considerations which compelled our decisions in
Watts v. Indiana, ante, p.
338 U. S. 49, and
Turner v. Pennsylvania, ante, p.
338 U. S. 62. The
judgment is accordingly
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs in the judgment on the authority of
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227;
Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143.
On the record before us and in view of the consideration given
to the evidence by the state courts and the conclusion reached, THE
CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED and MR. JUSTICE BURTON believe that
the judgment should be affirmed.
[
See ante, p.
338 U. S. 57,
for opinion of MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, concurring in the result in No.
610,
Watts v. Indiana, ante, p.
338 U. S. 49, and
dissenting in this case and in No. 107,
Turner v. Pennsylvania,
ante, p.
338 U. S. 62.]
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, concurring.
The undisputed facts concerning the arrest and interrogation of
the petitioner are as follows:
A storekeeper and his wife were killed in Aiken, South Carolina.
The killing seemed similar to other crimes which had been committed
in the community and which constituted a local crime wave. Local
feeling was running high, and the sheriff's office was anxious to
find a
Page 338 U. S. 72
solution. Numerous persons were interrogated. Nearly three
months later, suspicion fell on petitioner, because it became known
that he possessed a pistol and had left the community for
Nashville, Tennessee, shortly after the murder had occurred. The
sheriff secured a warrant of arrest for the petitioner, allegedly
for possessing a stolen pistol. The authorities in Nashville were
notified that petitioner was wanted, and he was picked up there and
placed in custody on a Friday. On the next Sunday, he was delivered
to the South Carolina officers. He was not read the warrant of
arrest, nor was he informed that he was suspected of having
committed the murder with which he was later charged and now stands
convicted. While handcuffed, he was driven back to Aiken and lodged
in the Aiken jail late that afternoon without being brought before
a magistrate. That was Sunday. It was not until Monday afternoon
that he was informed that he was under suspicion of having
committed the murder. He was questioned a short time. He denied his
guilt. A more extended questioning was held that night. The next
day, Tuesday, the vigor of the questioning was increased.
Petitioner was interrogated in the afternoon and again in the
evening until around midnight. It was during this session that two
incidents occurred. Petitioner had denied his guilt, but finally
made a statement implicating another negro, who denied guilt when
confronted with the accusation. It was also on Tuesday evening that
one of the officers laid a hand on the petitioner. Sharp issue is
taken on the nature of this act. Petitioner contends that he was
struck with force. The officer testified that he merely placed his
hand on petitioner's shoulder with no malice, and that he merely
stated that he did not believe certain statements that the
petitioner had made.
On Wednesday afternoon the questioning was begun again.
Petitioner still denied guilt. Wednesday evening,
Page 338 U. S. 73
he finally broke. The sheriff was alone with petitioner late at
night. He threatened to have petitioner's mother arrested for
having stolen property. It was then that petitioner offered to make
the confession that was eventually used against him. Petitioner
made his confession, and he was then removed to the state
penitentiary for protection.
These interrogations had been held in a small room eight feet by
eleven. Small groups of different officers conducted these
interrogations, which went on and on in the heat of the days and
nights. But during this time, he was denied counsel and access to
family and friends.
This is another illustration of the use by the police of he
custody of an accused to wring a confession from him. The
confession so obtained from literate and illiterate alike should
stand condemned.
See Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.
S. 596.